Author: Justin Bons

Translation: Frank, Foresight News

What is decentralization? How should we truly measure it? Too many projects use centralization as a cover to justify their mediocrity. In this article, we will conduct a true decentralization rating for BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, ADA, AVAX, and TRX.

6 Key Principles for Measuring Decentralization

First, we will establish 6 comprehensive principles for measuring decentralization: validator node decentralization, client decentralization, permissionless design, technical trade-offs, governance design, and political power decentralization.

1. Validator Node Decentralization

The number of validating nodes is meaningless because there is no protection against Sybil attacks on nodes. The distribution of unique validating nodes (nodes participating in block production) is important, as they are involved in both PoW and PoS.

2. Client Decentralization

Using a democratic system analogy:

A blockchain network with only one type of client is equivalent to a one-party system, meaning a single client implementation can become the gatekeeper for all protocol changes or upgrades, which is one way Bitcoin is effectively controlled.

3. Permissionless Protocol Design

Regardless of the number of nodes in a blockchain network, if there are elements in the protocol design that require permission, then decentralization is merely superficial. This includes any blockchain that relies on any form of authority (permission) to operate—famous examples being Ripple and Algorand (Algorand plans to change this).

4. Technical Trade-offs

This category focuses on design decisions that have a centralizing impact on the network, which may include high entry barriers, high node requirements, MEV, delegation/liquidity pools, PBS, etc. In these cases, details are crucial.

5. Governance Design

On-chain governance design is crucial for achieving any form of decentralization, but it is often overlooked. Lack of governance always leads to a power vacuum, ultimately attracting the worst people, leading to erroneous decisions and protocol control.

6. Political Power Decentralization

The impact of political power decentralization is an inevitable part of human nature, so we need to analyze influential figures and factions. From a technical standpoint, if founder worship predominates, then other aspects of decentralized blockchain are essentially still centralized.

Rating the 7 Major Public Chains

Next, we will use the above six key principles, with each dimension rated out of 10, for a total score of 60, to rate BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, ADA, AVAX, and TRX:

Assessing the decentralization level of BTC:

1. 8/10; Second highest number of validators;
2. 1/10; Core client dominance;
3. 10/10; No permissioned elements;
4. 5/10; PoW, no on-chain delegation;
5. 0/10; No on-chain governance;
6. 5/10; The wizard faction is growing (Foresight News note, supporting the minting of NFTs on the Bitcoin blockchain);

BTC total score: 29/60

Assessing the decentralization level of ETH:

1. 10/10; Highest number of validators;
2. 10/10; Most diverse client ecosystem;
3. 10/10; No permissioned elements;
4. 7/10; No on-chain delegation;
5. 0/10; No on-chain governance;
6. 6/10; Large ecosystem with numerous different factions;

ETH total score: 43/60

Assessing the decentralization level of SOL:

1. 7/10; Numerous validating nodes;
2. 7/10; Diverse client ecosystem;
3. 10/10; No permissioned elements;
4. 2/10; PoH, high node requirements;
5. 3/10; Planning on-chain governance;
6. 3/10; Large ecosystem with few factions;

SOL total score: 32/60

Assessing the decentralization level of XRP:

1. 1/10; Few unique validating nodes;
2. 0/10; Single client;
3. 0/10; Has permissioned elements;
4. 3/10; Uses a list of validating nodes;
5. 0/10; No planned on-chain governance;
6. 4/10; Small ecosystem, but with strong factions;

XRP total score: 17/60

Assessing the decentralization level of ADA:

1. 7/10; Many validating nodes;
2. 1/10; Single client;
3. 10/10; No permissioned elements;
4. 8/10; On-chain delegation;
5. 6/10; On-chain governance soon to be implemented;
6. 3/10; Resistance to IOHK is not strong (Foresight News note, IOHK is the Cardano development company);

ADA total score: 35/60

Assessing the decentralization level of AVAX:

1. 5/10; Average number of unique validators;
2. 1/10; Single client;
3. 10/10; No permissioned elements;
4. 8/10; On-chain delegation;
5. 8/10; Limited on-chain governance;
6. 3/10; Large ecosystem, but few factions;

AVAX total score: 35/60

Assessing the decentralization level of TRX:

1. 1/10; Low number of unique validators;
2. 1/10; Single client;
3. 10/10; No permissioned elements;
4. 2/10; Forced authorization;
5. 9/10; Full implementation of on-chain governance;
6. 3/10; Moderate ecosystem, founder-led;

TRX total score: 26/60

This model for measuring the decentralization level of blockchain networks is highly simplified. In previous research, Cyber Capital used over 50 parameters to derive a decentralization score and also weighted the factors individually. However, this simple yet flawed model can save a lot of unnecessary talk.

Although this model is simplified in many aspects, I still insist that ETH is currently the most decentralized blockchain, and SOL is more decentralized than BTC.

Objective parameter measurement surpasses emotions and cult-like thinking, although this may make many people uncomfortable as they are immersed in the fantasy of perfect decentralization. In fact, decentralization is a multifaceted field, and no single chain can excel in all aspects.

In conclusion, if you take decentralization seriously, you need to consider multiple dimensions to measure it.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。